[Football] World Cup: France vs Maty Ryan

OzMike

Well-known member

Oct 2, 2006

12,932

Perth Australia

• Jun 17, 2018

• #161

Watched the game at the pub and was surprised how many locals turned up to support the Aussies.
They played well and I, along with everyone else, was getting pretty hacked off with the French cheats, ref should have booked first one for simulation to ensure a better game.
Ref very weak and showed obvious bias toward the French.
The first penalty was a 50/50 shout, so shouldn't have been awarded.
Don't know what the French bloke was thinking for the second and even though the ball took a deflection for the third goal I think Matty would have saved it if he had made it back to his line.
Australia deserved at least a point.

 

Algernon

Well-known member

Sep 9, 2012

2,963

Newmarket.

• Jun 17, 2018

• #162

BensGrandad said:

What did it matter that the defender touches the ball first as the Frenchman's trailing leg was caught so a definite penalty as VAR proved.correctly.

Click to expand...

Watch tackles in the remaining matches. I'd say that in a large percentage the ball will be touched first then leg/foot after. Are they all fouls?
In this instance I can see that the Aussie player initially (very slightly) touched the ball then possibly made a deliberate effort to stop the progress of the French player. The interval between taking the ball then taking the player seems to be the deciding factor here.
This happens a lot over the course of a match and those with a less discernible gap don't get pulled up as they're maybe seen as part of the tackle.

 

Mr Cleansheets

New member

Jun 7, 2017

98

• Jun 20, 2018

• #163

That VAR decision was an absolute disgrace. Risdon (RB) did connect with the ball first and enough to make Griezmann overhit it with his next touch. He lost control of the ball so dropped to his knees after taking another two steps. Yes there was very slight contact by Risdon after touching the ball but no way enough to make Griezmann fall. It's a contact sport FFS!

The point is, VAR is supposed to be used only for "obvious errors". If everyone is still arguing about whether that was a penalty, how can it be an obvious error. Then they go on letting defenders hog-tie and wrestle the likes of Harry Kane to the ground, but no VAR for that...

 

hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.

Helpful Moderator

Mar 16, 2005

61,279

Chandlers Ford

• Jun 20, 2018

• #164

Mr Cleansheets said:

That VAR decision was an absolute disgrace. Risdon (RB) did connect with the ball first and enough to make Griezmann overhit it with his next touch. He lost control of the ball so dropped to his knees after taking another two steps. Yes there was very slight contact by Risdon after touching the ball but no way enough to make Griezmann fall. It's a contact sport FFS!
.

Click to expand...

Entirely wrong, IMO.

Yes he got a tiny touch on the ball, but the crucial thing is that Griezman still had control of the ball, so that little touch is irrelevant.

Had the touch toed the ball five yards to the left, and then he'd wiped him out, then yes - no pen. But it didn't.

 

Mr Cleansheets

New member

Jun 7, 2017

98

• Jun 20, 2018

• #165

Well I disagree. The ball was deflected onto Griezmann's left foot so he overhit it into Ryan's hands...then flung himself to the ground once he realised he'd lost control.

But the main point is, the VAR was not introduced to re-referee every incident. It is only supposed to be used for obvious errors and with so many people saying it was not a pen in the first place, how can you possibly say it was an obvious error?

The Harry Kane incident, on the other hand, was one of the most blatantly obvious pens in the history of football. Why no VAR?